|
|
|
|
|
|
by Calib3r
2877 days ago
|
|
|
Some of us believe federal regulatory agencies are unconstitutional due to their ability to interpret laws (isn't that the Legislative branch's job?). EPA, FCC, and their ilk have no obligation to represent the opinion of the people. Federal agencies are given a blank check to interpret (write) laws without any real checks and balances. |
|
|
No, interpreting laws is the judicial branches role (as the ultimate decision point), but it's also essential to executive functioning (as you get apply or execute a law without first interpreting it.)
> EPA, FCC, and their ilk have no obligation to represent the opinion of the people.
Neither does Congress or the President.
> Federal agencies are given a blank check to interpret (write) laws without any real checks and balances.
“Interpret” does not mean “write”, and both the adjudicative/interpretive and regulation-writing functions of agencies are constrained by judicial review (of both) and both advance and responsive (Congressional Review Act) constraint by Congress (for the regulatory function.)